Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS, ) (d/b/a of R. Joseph Franzese), ) R. JOSEPH FRANZESE, individually) and d/b/a SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS,) and ROBERT M. ZIEMAN, SR., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal ) corporation, RICHARD M. DALEY, ) individually and as the Mayor ) of the City of Chicago, and ) JODY P. WEIS, Superintendent ) of Police of the City of ) Chicago, MIGUEL DEL VALLE, ) City Clerk of the City of ) Chicago, and MARIA GEORGES, ) individually and as Corporation ) Counsel of the City of Chicago, ) ) Defendants. )

Civil Case No: 1:10-cv-4257

COMPLAINT NOW AMENDMENT undersigned seeking COME ARMS Plaintiffs, and from ROBER WALTER R. M. JOSEPH ZIEMAN, CITY OF MAKSYM, FRANZESE SR., by and d/b/a/ and SECOND through of and M.

counsel,

complaining CHICAGO,

relief

Defendants

RICHARD

DALEY, JODY P. WEIS, MIGUEL DEL VALLE and MARIA GEORGES, state as follows: THE PARTIES 1. SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS, being Plaintiff R. JOSEPH FRANZESE d/b/a/ SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS (“SECOND AMENDMENT”), is a natural person and a citizen of the United States, who resides and does business in Lake Villa, Illinois as a duly licensed federal firearms dealer. 2. Plaintiff ROBER M. ZIEMAN, SR. (“ZIEMAN”), is a natural

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 26

person, a citizen of the United States, a law-abiding, life-long resident and long-time employee of the City of Chicago, who, as such, and is legally required to reside in said City by its ordinance. He is an and is a honorably discharged veteran of the United States Marine Corps (the “Marine Corps”), who is well and extensively trained and experienced in the safety and use of various firearms, including but not limited to side-arms, and has also been trained and designated by the Marine Corps in special weapons safety and usage. 3. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO (“CHICAGO” or the “CITY”) is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. CHICAGO is the largest city in both Illinois and the Midwestern United States and the third most populous city in the United States, with over 2.8 million people living within the city limits, 75.8% of which, approximately 2.07 million, are 18 years of age or older. The CITY’S area covers approximately 228 square miles (591 square km). 4. Defendant RICHARD M. DALEY (“MAYOR DALEY”), is, and was at all times relevant, the Mayor of the City of Chicago, and as such is responsible for executing, and administering its laws, customs, practices, and policies. In that capacity, he presently enforces the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 5. Defendant JODY P. WEIS (the “SUPERINTENDENT”), is, and was at all times as its relevant, such laws, is the Superintendent for practices, and of Police of and In CHICAGO, and responsible executing, policies.

administering

customs,

that capacity, he also presently enforces the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 6. Defendant MIGUEL DEL VALLE (the “CITY CLERK”), is, and

2

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 26

was

at

all and

times as its

relevant, such laws, is

the

City

Clerk for

of and

the

City

of and In

Chicago,

responsible

executing, policies.

administering

customs,

practices,

that capacity, he also presently enforces the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 7. Defendant MARIA GEORGES (the “Corporation Counsel”), is, and was at all times relevant, the chief legal counsel for the City of Chicago, and as such has been and is responsible for executing, under the and prosecuting its laws, In customs, practices, she and also policies and collecting sums that may be claimed, due or owing CITY’S ordinances. that capacity, presently drafts, defends, enforces the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action. She is sued in both his individual and official capacities. JURISDICTION 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. VENUE 9. Venue lies and is proper the in Eastern District of Illinois, Eastern Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because Plaintiffs’ claims arose within this District out of conduct of the Defendants herein complained of that occurred in and of about the the City of Chicago, and/or County do of Cook, State of Illinois, as is hereinafter more particularly alleged, and all Defendants reside business within this District. NATURE OF THE ACTION 10. damages, U.S.C. § Plaintiffs bring their claims against the Defendants equitable, 1983 et. declaratory, seq., the and other relief under 18 and First, Second, Fourth,

3

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 26

Fourteenth

Amendments

to

the

U.S.

Constitution,

the

Illinois

Constitution and Illinois law. FACTS COMMON TO All COUNTS 11. On June 28, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, ___ U.S. ___ (Slip. Opin. June 28, 2010) (“McDonald v. Chicago”), wherein it found that the in Second the Amendment Fourteenth to the United and States is incorporated Amendment therefore

guarantees a fundamental personal right of the people to keep and bear arms made applicable to the states and their political subdivisions, hereto. 12. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court, by reversal and remandment to the Seventh Circuit, paved the way for Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-040(a) et. seq. that was enacted approximately 28 years ago and became effective on or about March 19, 1982 (the “Old Gun Ban Ordinance”, a copy which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), and that banned handguns by making them “unregisterable” by law-abiding citizens, and thereby prohibited and was designed to render their ownership, transfer, and possession illegal, to be inevitably struck down and declared unconstitutional upon remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 13. Thereafter, on or about June 30, 2010 and July 2, 2010 SECOND pursuant Protection Ordinance”, AMENDMENT to a Title Chapter copy caused 4 to be filed and submitted and as two applications with the CITY CLERK’S office in accordance with and Businesses, 4-144 which is Weapons attached Occupations (the hereto Consumer Dealer “B” “Weapons officers and employees, such as the Defendants

Exhibit

seeking to obtain weapons dealer business licenses to permit him, as an experienced and as a duly licensed federal firearms dealer,
to open and operate two 4 gun shops at two separate

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 5 of 26

locations within CHICAGO, and who also planned and intended to submit additional applications to apply for and open other gun shops, firing and training ranges at other locations within and throughout CHICAGO. 14. On or about July 1, 2010, in response to McDonald v. Chicago, MAYOR DALEY, a long time fervent opponent of the right of others, than himself, ordinance Court of to will keep soon and be and bear arms, down he publicly by the announced at a press conference, “It’s clear to all that our current Seventh handgun Circuit struck Appeals,” therefore would

immediately propose the immediate adoption of an ordinance that would have among its key provisions, inter alia, the following: a. Limiting registration of no more than one handgun per month in the home per adult or applicant and generally prohibiting the possession of a handgun by any person except in the person’s home. b. Establishing a two-step process to own and register a handgun. First, an applicant must obtain a city firearms permit, which requires having a valid State of Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) Card, and then an applicant must register the gun with the Chicago Police Department. c. Prohibiting handgun ownership by anyone who has been convicted of any violent crime, has two or more offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and under state law has been convicted of domestic violence. d. Banning “assault weapons” and providing for mandatory jail time beginning in 2011 for anyone who is caught with one. e. Requiring firearms safety training, both in a classroom and on a firing range. f. Banning gun shops. g. Including “severe” penalties for violating the ordinance, including hefty fines and jail time. 15. Thereafter, on the next day, July 2, 2010, and without
5

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 6 of 26

seeking or allowing public comment or input or review, and in order to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago and deliberately deny CHICAGO’S law-abiding residents and others wishing to purchase or use lawful firearms in the CITY the ability to acquire, obtain, keep and bear arms, i.e., legal handguns and other weapons, CHICAGO adopted a more sweeping ordinance hurriedly proposed by MAYOR DALEY to become effective on July 12, 2010 (the “New Gun Ban Ordinance”, a copy which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”). FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF CHICAGO’S BAN AND RESTRICTIONS ON WEAPONS DEALERS, GUN STORES, ADVERTISING AND SALES INFRINGES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INFRINGE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. I, II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16. SECOND AMENDMENT, complaining of all Defendants, realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully stated herein. 17. On information and belief, the New Gun-Ban Ordinance provides in pertinent part with respect to weapons dealers and gun shops and sales: SECTION 2. Chapter 2-84 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by adding a new section 284-075, as follows: 2-84-075 Sale of firearms and ammunition authorized by the superintendent. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, the superintendent may authorize the sale of firearms or ammunition by a person issued a federal firearms license to a member of the police department, if that member is authorized to carry such firearm or ammunition. Such sales shall be conducted at department of police facilities. SECTION 3. Title 4 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by adding a new section 4-144-065, by adding the language underscored, and by deleting the language struck through, as follows:

6

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 7 of 26

4-144-010 License – Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, or give away or otherwise transfer, any pistol, revolver or other firearm, dagger, stiletto, billie, derringer, bowie knife, dirk, stun gun or taser, as defined in Section 24-1 of the Illinois Criminal Code, 720 ILCS 5/24-1, or other deadly weapon which can be carried or concealed on the person, or any ammunition, as that term is defined in Section 8-20-010, without securing a weapons dealer license. The license required by this chapter shall be in addition to any other license required by law. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this chapter to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, give away or otherwise transfer, any firearm as that term is defined in Section 8-20-010. (Emphasis supplied) 18. or The any Fourteenth law which Amendment shall to the the United States or

Constitution provides, in pertinent part: “No State shall make enforce abridge privileges immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 19. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the New Gun Ban Ordinance deprives, or as applied, may deprive, law abiding persons and their families and loved ones as well as those engaged in commerce or operating businesses, life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny them equal protection of the laws. 20. and the a Pursuant to McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment and immunity that and of United States to and citizenship may not be right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right privilege pursuant to its incorporation under the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth by Amendment, the states applies their infringed political subdivisions,

officers and employees, such as the Defendants herein.

7

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 8 of 26

21.

Pursuant to McDonald v. Chicago, handguns, as a class

of weapons, are “arms”, the possession of which by law-abiding adult citizens is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and may not be infringed. 22. The New Gun Ban Ordinance, inter alia, bans gun shops and the commercial and individual sales, transfer and gifting of and/or the acquisition of firearms by persons within the CITY. Plaintiffs maintain that the New Gun Ban Ordinance is vague, arbitrary, capricious, overly broad, and infringes the fundamental right of the law-abiding people within the CITY of CHICAGO to and keep and bear arms, as is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that it contains, inter alia, the following unconstitutional prohibitions and restrictions on the sale, possession and use of firearms within said CITY that are designed and intended not to reasonably regulate but to infringe on and unduly burden the free exercise of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the CITY of CHICAGO, to wit: A. it arbitrarily prohibits deadly weapons dealers and other persons from selling or otherwise transferring firearms, in the CITY, except through inheritance. B. it arbitrarily limits registration of no more than one handgun per month in the home per adult or applicant and generally prohibiting the possession of a handgun by any person except only within the person’s home. C. it arbitrarily prohibits the possession of a handgun by any person, except within in the person’s home, excluding porches, yards and garages. However, Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/24 - the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons [“UUW”] statute), specifically permits, makes exempt from prosecution and perfectly lawful the right of law-abiding Illinois law citizens’ to transport, carry and possess firearms in public in Illinois by declaring, to wit: “nothing in this Article shall prohibit, apply to, or affect the transportation, carrying, or possession of any pistol, … or other firearm [in Illinois] *** which is unloaded and
8

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 9 of 26

enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid Firearms Owners Identification Card.” (Emphasis supplied) Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court held in People v. Diggings, 235 Ill. 2d 48 (2009) (“Diggins”), that for purposes of the statutory exemption unloaded weapons enclosed in a “case, a firearm carrying box, shipping box or other container,” the center console of an automobile was a “case.” Thus, Illinois’ highest court gave the term “case” its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes any portable or nonportable receptacle and need not be interpreted only in reference to firearms. Because the center console of a vehicle is a receptacle that contains or holds something, the center console of a vehicle falls within the ordinary definition of “case”. D. it arbitrarily prohibits a person from possessing a long gun, except when in the person’s home, or fixed place of business. E. it arbitrarily provides for the same exceptions as above for the possession of handguns, with an additional exception for hunters where hunting is lawful. F. it arbitrarily prohibits the possession of “assault weapons” and “other firearms that are unregisterable”. G. it arbitrarily requires each person who keeps or possesses a firearm in his or her home must keep no more than one firearm in his home that is assembled and operable, and further unconstitutionally requires all other firearms possessed in the home be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have trigger lock or other mechanism making the firearm temporarily inoperable. H. it arbitrarily requires that no person may keep or possess any firearm or ammunition in his home if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under 18 years old is likely to gain access to the firearm or ammunition, unless: (i) the person is physically present in the home and the firearm is either being held by the person or is physically secured on the person’s body; (ii) the firearm is secured by a trigger lock or similar mechanism; or (iii) the firearm and ammunition are placed in a securely locked box or container (when Illinois statutory and case law permits transportation of firearms in a “case” or “container”). However, no person may be punished under said provision if the minor uses the firearm for self-defense, or gains access

9

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 10 of 26

to the firearm through unlawful entry. I. it arbitrarily prohibits the possession or transfer of, inter alia, any laser-sight accessory, when such accessories assist and improve accuracy in life or death situations. J. it arbitrarily requires the registered owner of a vehicle that contains a firearm registered to a person who is not the driver or occupant of the vehicle, an unregistered firearm, a firearm that is not being lawfully transported, an unregisterable firearm, inter alia, a laser-sight accessory, shall be subject to an administrative penalty of $1,000.00 plus any towing and storage fees. K. it arbitrarily prohibits the possession of ammunition by any person is prohibited unless the person has a valid owner’s permit (a/k/a CHICAGO FIREARMS PERMIT [“CFP”]), and registration certificate for a firearm of the same caliber as the ammunition possessed. L. it also arbitrarily requires permits for firearms owners and the registration of firearms permit to carry or possess a firearm CFP by requiring that, in order to qualify therefore, persons: 1. must be 21 years of age, or 18-20 with permission and no misdemeanor conviction; 2. must possess a valid Illinois FOID card; 3. must not have been convicted of (i) a violent crime, (ii) two or more offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; or (iii) an unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm; 4. must arbitrarily and illogically have vision sufficient for a drivers’ license, when lesser vision is sufficient to use a firearm to defend one’s life, home, loved ones and property or engage in other lawful uses and the collection and ownership of firearms; 5. must not be otherwise firearm under any law; ineligible to possess a parent’s

6. must not have violated Municipal Code provisions prohibiting possession of a laser-sight accessory,

10

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 11 of 26

firearm silencer or muffler, or unlawful sales of firearms; 7. a CFP card shall expire 3 years after the date of issuance; with an unreasonable fee of $100.00 per weapon, a overly burdensome sum equivalent to a substantial percentage of if not the full the value of the average price of a new or pre-owned firearm and denies equal protection of the laws and the privileges and immunities by waived such fees for retired CPD officers); 8. requires applicants for a CFP to have completed a firearm safety and training course with at least one hour of range training and four hours of classroom instruction when no gun training or shooting ranges are not permitted within the CITY, and submission for unnecessary fingerprinting of law-abiding citizen and FOID Card holders who have passed background checks that unduly burdens applicants, infringes their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and invades their privacy; 9. provides that the Superintendent must process applications within an unreasonably burdensome 45 days (120 days for applications submitted within 180 days after passage of the ordinance), unless good cause is shown without providing sufficient guidelines or standards therefore. 23. The New Gun Ban Ordinance and the requirement provisions burdensome, for firearm are overly

registration arbitrary,

certificate(s)

thereof vague,

capricious,

unreasonably

broad or narrow and therefore infringe on the right of lawabiding people in the CITY of CHICAGO to keep and bear arms and is unconstitutional for one or more of the following reasons: a. it arbitrarily requires a registration certificate to be carried or possessed with each firearm; b. it arbitrarily requires that a certificate expire at the time of the CFP, but an annual registration report is required and an application fee is $15.00 for each firearm registered;

11

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 12 of 26

c. it arbitrarily requires that each applicant be issued only one registration certificate per month for a handgun for the home in which the applicant resides; d. it arbitrarily and vaguely classifies firearms as “unregisterable” without providing sufficient guidelines or standards therefore, but only stating that handguns are defined as “unsafe” i.e. that do not meet “safety standards” or “otherwise inappropriate for lawful use”; e. it arbitrarily provides that firearms that become “unregisterable” as to a person for violations of the Municipal Code thereby denying property without due process of law; f. it arbitrarily and vaguely defines firearms as “assault weapons”, with certain exceptions; g. it arbitrarily and vaguely requires only that “lost or stolen” firearms and not other property must be reported immediately to the superintendent; h. it arbitrarily and vaguely alludes that “procedures are established for application denials, and revocations of CFP and registration certificates” without providing sufficient guidelines or standards therefore; i. it arbitrarily provides unreasonable and excessive penalties include fines of $1,000.00-$5,000.00, incarceration for not less than 20 days or more than 90 days, or both with any subsequent conviction to be punishable by a fine of $5,000.00 - $10,000.00, and by incarceration for not less than 30 days, nor more than six months; j. it arbitrarily and vaguely establishes procedures for hearing for denials and revocations of a CFP and registration certificate without providing sufficient guidelines or standards therefore; k. it arbitrarily and vaguely delegates unbridled discretion and power to the Superintendent to develop a roster of “safe handguns” and “assault weapons” that will be posted on the [police] dept.’s web site without providing any sufficient guidelines or standards therefore; l. it arbitrarily and vaguely similarly provides that only handguns that are listed on the “roster” are permissible

12

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 13 of 26

and that “assault weapons” listed on the list of banned “assault weapons” that is designed and intended not to reasonably regulate but to infringe on and burden the fundamental and guaranteed right to keep and bear arms; m. it arbitrarily and vaguely authorizes the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of weapons, firearms, and laser-sight accessories kept in violation of the chapter; n. it arbitrarily and vaguely delegates unbridled discretion and power to unidentified persons by broadly providing that rules and regulations pertaining to the chapter will be posted on the police department’s web site without providing any sufficient guidelines or standards; o. it arbitrarily and vaguely and illogically prohibits shooting galleries and firing and target ranges (other than for law enforcement) in CHICAGO, when the same ordinance mandates all applicants complete a four hour firearm safety and training course with at least one hour of range training and four hours of classroom instruction, when no gun training or shooting ranges are permitted to do business within the CITY; p. it arbitrarily establishes a range of unreasonable penalties for violations of thereof that are designed and intended to deter law-abiding citizen’s exercise of their fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; q. it amends § 8-24-010 of CHICAGO’S Old Gun Ban Ordinance to arbitrarily and capriciously limit the discharge of a firearm in the CITY only within one’s home in the lawful self-defense or self-defense of another; r. its combined and cumulative effect is to arbitrarily and capriciously limit, infringe, burden, ration, and endeavor to unconstitutionally ban and or severely ration firearms and the free exercise of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within and about CHICAGO; s. it otherwise infringes the right of law-abiding citizen’s exercise of their fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and denies due process by interfering with and depriving them of their property rights, value, and usage; and t. it otherwise conflicts with federal and state law.

13

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 14 of 26

24. Pursuant to the holding McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment and incorporated and made applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment personal Moreover, possessed lawful possess to the states and these Defendants, within law and may wish guarantees the all may home. persons by any freely individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear functional, firearms, under of and a as valid many including Illinois firearms them handguns, and they FOID as Card Illinois statutory case

acquire

means

transport

throughout

Illinois,

including

CHICAGO, for self-protection and other lawful purposes, along with ammunition, provided they are unloaded and in a case or container, exempted by the Illinois Legislature as law conduct under 720 ILCS 5/24 and the Illinois Supreme Court in Diggins, as aforesaid. 25. By banning gun shops and the sale handguns, CHICAGO and MAYOR DALEY currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprive individuals, including the Plaintiffs, of their right to keep and bear arms, and engage in commerce by selling them, lawful products, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 26. By reason of the CITY’S adoption of its New Gun Ban Ordinance outlawing any and all gun shops within the CITY, any further effort, request or demand by SECOND AMENDMENT pursue or its applications or obtain issuance of Weapons Dealers licenses from the CHICAGO by MAYOR DALEY and/or the CITY CLERK would be futile. 27. of 42 As a § result 1983. of the foregoing are infringement, SECOND to AMENDMENT has been and will continue to be damaged in violation U.S.C. Plaintiffs of 14 therefore entitled declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against continued enforcement
and maintenance Defendants’ unconstitutional

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 15 of 26

customs, policies, and practices. 28. related As a result and consequence of CHICAGO and DALEY’S accessories, of the in the CITY and their in defiance McDonald and v. total ban on the sales of a lawful products, i.e., firearms and circumvention Supreme Court’s ruling

Chicago, SECOND AMENDMENT will suffer damages including but not limited to a loss of profits, goodwill, and other general and economic damages as the proofs will show at trial. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS PRAYS: That judgment be entered in their favor SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS and against Defendants: A. permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, of from Old enforcing Gun Ban or prosecuting and all New of Gun of the Ban provisions renewal of the Ordinance daily

credit reports as a condition of submitting an application for any city license, mandating that registration certificates for firearms be obtained prior to taking possession of a firearm: as applied within firearm B. to a prohibiting period of possession time for of an unregistered necessary reason to firearm obtain it with has the reasonably the sole relief

registration; and any custom, policy, or practice of deeming a “unregisterable” awarding and him that previously been not validly registered. declaratory that to consistent injunction referenced declaring not CHICAGO’S constitute above-referenced reasonable or

ordinances be adjudged and decreed, inter alia, that the aboveordinances permissible regulations, but rather violate Amendments I, II,

15

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 16 of 26

IV, XIV and the Due Process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution, thus rendering them unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and unenforecible. C. loss of D. E. awarding him damages including but not limited to a profits, goodwill, and other general and economic

damages as the proofs will show at trial awarding him attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 granting him such other and further relief as this U.S.C. § 1988; and Court may deem just and proper in the premises. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ZIEMAN’S INDIVIDUAL ACTION FOR RESTITUTION, DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO ACQUIRE, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS U.S. CONST., AMENDS. I, II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 29. Plaintiff ZIEMAN, complaining of all Defendants, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully stated herein. 30. Police Pursuant and to CHICAGO’S valuable unconstitutional handguns and Old Gun that Ban he Ordinance, ZIEMAN’S home was invaded and searched by the CHICAGO numerous rifles possessed therein and maintained in a safe as FOID Card holder were seized, confiscated and/or destroyed, and he was thereafter found guilty and fined for failing to register them thereunder. 31. ZEIMAN desires seized, to purchase and replace by his unconstitutionally confiscated firearms promptly

purchasing from a weapons dealer which CHICAGO’S New Gun Ban Ordinance purports to prohibit. 32. ZIEMAN maintains that requiring he and other lawabiding citizens and CHICAGO residents to annually re-register each firearm and the other above-referenced and complained of limitations, prohibitions, restrictions and requirements imposed upon him and weapons dealers such as SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS, that Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce are a set of
16

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 17 of 26

laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law that deprive Plaintiffs and other individuals, their right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are thus damaged in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 33. ZIEMAN therefore maintains that he is thus entitled to the return and restitution of his said firearms in kind or the fair market value thereof, vacation and expungment of his conviction for failure to register his weapons, a refund of any fines, court costs, expenses, legal fees incurred as a result thereof, damages, declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against continued enforcement and maintenance of Defendants’ unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices along with his attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF ZIEMAN PRAYS: That judgment be entered in their favor ZIEMAN and against Defendants: A. permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, of from Old enforcing Gun Ban or enforcing and all New of Gun of the Ban provisions renewal of the Ordinance daily be

Ordinance; including, but not limited to requiring the annual firearms registrations, and for reporting obtained to and sales, that to fingerprinting, registration taking possession signage of a to advertising; firearms as applied mandating

certificates

prior

firearm: obtain it has

prohibiting any not custom, validly

possession of an unregistered firearm within a period of time reasonably the sole necessary reason registration; previously policy, or practice of deeming a firearm “unregisterable” for that been registered.

Fourteenth Amendments and Due Process and takings clauses of the of the taking clause of the United States Constitution rendering them unconstitutional, void ab initio, and unenforecible. C. D. E. awarding him general, compensatory and punitive damages as the proofs will show at trial; awarding him attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 granting him such other and further relief as this THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CLASS ACTION FOR RESTITUTION AND OTHER RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS U.S. CONST., AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 34. Plaintiff ZIEMAN, complaining of all of the Defendants, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 29 through 33 as if fully stated 35. herein By and states individually citizens and and as class representative: requiring law-abiding resident, including Plaintiff and his fellow class members, to register all firearms prior to their acquisition, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprive individuals, including the Plaintiffs, of their right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and the class are thus damaged in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs and the class of are therefore entitled to declaratory customs, and permanent and injunctive relief against continued enforcement and maintenance Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, U.S.C. § 1988; and Court may deem just and proper in the premises.

18

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 19 of 26

practices. 36. behalf of The class on whose behalf this action is brought on ZIEMAN and individually, other all entities those and all natural lived who citizens living and in, having in,

corporations Illinois

having done business in, doing business in CHICAGO, State of including persons have been charged and/or prosecuted under or who have plead or been found guilty under CHICAGO’S Old Gun Ban Ordinance that have had any of their firearms confiscated and or destroyed, incurred or paid fines, penalties, court costs as a result of any plea or conviction under said unconstitutional ordinance, or incurred or paid any witness, expert, attorneys or other fees in connection with the defense of any such charge or prosecution by the CHICAGO, its attorneys, officers, agents or employees, over and during the period 28 years that said unconstitutional ordinance has been enacted, i.e., since March 19, 1982, and thereafter. 37. 38. because: (a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. While the exact number and identities of the class members are unknown at this time, ZIEMAN believes the number to be substantial and that they can be determine through discovery and full disclosure and accounting of CHICAGO’S, MAYOR DALEY’S, (b) limited SUPERINTENDENT WEIS’, the CITY CLERK’S and court records, that are solely within their possession and control. there are questions of fact or law, including but not to the that above are issues common of to constitutionality the class. Such of said questions That ZIEMAN, as class representative, will adequately That a class action may be maintained in this action represent the claims of each of these natural citizens.

ordinances members.

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class

19

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 20 of 26

(c)

ZIEMAN

is

best the

situated interest

to, of so

and the to

will, class step

fairly and

and

adequately them, be

represent fearful of

other to

members, who like them, have been intimidated, and may, like retaliation as forward vindicate and protect their rights. (d) a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy and will serve the interests of judicial economy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ZIEMAN, individually and as class representative, prays for judgment against the CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY, the SUPERINTENDENT and the CITY CLERK as follows: A. certifying the class and declaring that the CITY’S above-referenced ordinances be found, declared, adjudged, and decreed to be unconstitutional and null and void, ab initio, as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago; B. agents, persons ordering servants, having Defendants, employees, acted or their attorneys acting in predecessors, and assigns, active officers, and all or

concert

participation with them, jointly and severally, to account for, refund and pay over and back to them any and all moneys, fines, penalties, payments, costs, expenses and fees found due, paid, owing or recovered thereunder by or on their behalf or as a result of the actions of any of the turn over and refund to ZIEMAN and the Class; C. class and awarding general, ZIEMAN, as class and representative, punitive damages and the compensatory against

said Defendants, their predecessors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and assigns, and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, for their unlawful enforcement and application and prosecution of said ordinances.

20

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 21 of 26

D. including permanent

awarding but not

the

class

representative to temporary, declaring

and

the

class and an and for,

equitable relief against each Defendants, jointly and severally, limited said declare preliminary their pleas void injunctive under Court relief,

convictions that this

unconstitutional all said sums

ordinances to be

expunged and removed all related government records and files, accounted disgorged and refunded to the class representative and class with prejudgment interest thereon; E. ordering said Defendants, their predecessors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and assigns, and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, to turnover and return all weapons any other property seized, impounded or confiscated by them from the ZIEMAN and the Class members under its said unconstitutional ordinances, or in the alternative, if such weapons or other property have been destroyed, damaged or cannot be found or located, the fair market value thereof be determined and order paid them plus prejudgment interest; F. and awarding the class representative and the class civil appropriate the remedies class costs, including an equitable fair as and class equitable G.

attorneys fees; and awarded the class representative and the class such other and further relief, as may be appropriate, necessary, just and proper in the premises. SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS’ PENDANT STATE CLAIM FOR MANDAMUS 39. Plaintiff SECOND AMENDMENT, complaining of all of the Defendants, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28
21

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 22 of 26

as if fully stated herein and states individually and as class representative: 40. As a law–abiding citizen and a person qualified and licensed as to sell weapons as a federally licensed firearms dealer, and the SECOND CITY AMENDMENT CLERK and is entitled him, in acts, pursuant to the of above their Dealer stated and Illinois law, to have Defendants CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY issue performance the nondiscretionary ministerial Weapons

business licenses applied for as aforesaid upon payment of a reasonable fee therefore. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS PRAYS: That judgment be entered in their favor SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS and against Defendants: A. issuing a writ of mandamus ordering, directing, compelling Defendants CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY and the CITY CLERK perform their nondiscretionary and ministerial acts, and issue him the Weapons Dealer business licenses he applied for as aforesaid, upon payment of a reasonable application/processing fee therefore; B. C. awarding attorney fees and costs; and granting such other and further relief as this Court ZIEMAN’S PENDANT INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION STATE CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 41. Plaintiff ZIEMAN, complaining of CHICAGO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 29 through 38 as if fully stated herein and states individually and as class representative: 42. That as a result of the foregoing and said ordinances violating of Illinois Constitution, Article I. §§ 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 22 and 24, CHICAGO has been unjustly enriched and therefore ZIEMAN is entitled to restitution.

may deem just and proper in the premises.

22

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 23 of 26

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

ZIEMAN,

individually

and

as

class

representative, prays for judgment against the CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY, the SUPERINTENDENT and the CITY CLERK as follows: A. certifying the class and declaring that the CITY’S above-referenced ordinances be found, declared, adjudged, and decreed to be unconstitutional and null and void, ab initio, as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago; B. agents, persons ordering servants, having Defendants, employees, acted or their attorneys acting in predecessors, and assigns, active officers, and all or

concert

participation with them, jointly and severally, to account for, refund and pay over and back to them any and all moneys, fines, penalties, payments, costs, expenses and fees found due, paid, owing or recovered thereunder by or on their behalf or as a result of the actions of any of the turn over and refund to ZIEMAN and the Class; C. class and awarding general, ZIEMAN, as class and representative, punitive damages and the compensatory against

said Defendants, their predecessors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and assigns, and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, for their unlawful enforcement and application and prosecution of said ordinances. D. including permanent convictions that this awarding but not the class representative to temporary, declaring and the class and an and for, equitable relief against each Defendants, jointly and severally, limited said declare preliminary their pleas void injunctive under Court relief,

unconstitutional all said sums

ordinances to be

expunged and removed all related government records and files, accounted

23

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 24 of 26

disgorged and refunded to the class representative and class with prejudgment interest thereon; E. ordering said Defendants, their predecessors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and assigns, and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, to turnover and return all weapons any other property seized, impounded or confiscated by them from the ZIEMAN and the Class members under its said unconstitutional ordinances, or in the alternative, if such weapons or other property have been destroyed, damaged or cannot be found or located, the fair market value thereof be determined and order paid them plus prejudgment interest; F. and awarding the class representative and the class civil appropriate the remedies class costs, including an equitable fair as and class equitable G.

attorneys fees; and awarded the class representative and the class such other and further relief, as may be appropriate, necessary, just and proper in the premises. ZIEMAN’S PENDANT STATE CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (735 ILCS 5/2-701) 43. Plaintiff ZIEMAN incorporates the foregoing paragraphs 39 through 40 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 44. That by reason of the foregoing ZIEMAN is entitled to a judicial declaration of his rights pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 and declaratory relief in connection therewith. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF ZIEMAN PRAYS that this Court enter a declaratory judgment in his favor against Defendants pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, as follows: A.
declaring that CHICAGO’S above referenced ordinances 24

unenforceable; general, compensatory punitive damages as the proofs will show at trial; awarding him attorney fees and costs; and granting him such other and further relief as this

Court may deem just and proper in the premises. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs hereby requests a trial by jury of all issues that may be so triable. Dated and filed electronically using the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois “CM/ECF System” this 9th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted, R. JOSEPH FRANZESE d/b/a/ SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS and ROBERT M. ZIEMAN, SR., By_/s/ Walter Maksym_____________ WALTER MAKSYM, their attorney ATTORNEY’S RULE 11 CERTIFICATION The undersigned attorney certifies that he has read the foregoing complaint, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact the same is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. _/s/ Walter Maksym___________________ WALTER MAKSYM, Plaintiffs’ attorney

25

Case 1:10-cv-04257 Document 1

Filed 07/09/10 Page 26 of 26

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 11 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that he is the Plaintiff in that above-captioned cause, that he has read the foregoing complaint, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact the same is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation and that the exhibits attached, if any are true and correct copies of the documents they purport to be. /s/ R. Joseph Franzese____ R. JOSEPH FRANZESE, d/b/a/ SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS, Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 11 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that he is the Plaintiff in that above-captioned cause, that he has read the foregoing complaint, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact the same is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation and that the exhibits attached, if any are true and correct copies of the documents they purport to be. /s/ Robert M. Zieman, Sr.________ ROBERT M. ZIEMAN, SR., Plaintiff